1. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the co-born of J, the owner of the I building in Seocho-gu E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “the above real estate”), and the representative director of K corporation, the purpose of which is fire-fighting equipment, and the defendant B.

K Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with Defendant A on July 20, 2010 on the construction of fire-fighting equipment for Defendant A and I building with KRW 75 million and completed the construction, but it received KRW 50 million from Defendant A and received KRW 25 million.

On April 12, 2013, Cheongju District Court decided to commence a voluntary auction on April 15, 2013.

Defendant

A reported a false lien, with the intention to lower the successful bid price by failing to bid the above real estate and finding Defendant B around June 2013, and “The outstanding amount may be received if a report on a lien is made.”

However, if the report is made as originally in accordance with the original contract, it is difficult to receive any balance because the amount of dividends is small, and thus, it would be possible to prepare and submit a new contract for construction work in which the amount of the contract would be increased to KRW 310,00,00, and Defendant B prepared “the standard contract for construction work” with Defendant A, with the consent of Defendant A, stating “I building of the contractor, beneficiary K corporation, contract amount to KRW 310,783,00,000, and date of preparation.”

Defendant

B, around September 5, 2013, at the Cheongju District Court, filed a lien report with K Co., Ltd. and the reported amount of KRW 310,783,00 with respect to the case of voluntary auction (L) on the said real estate, accompanied by a copy of the “standard contract for construction contract”, a copy of construction estimate, etc., and submitted to the court employees who were unaware of the aforementioned false details.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion and thereby interfered with the fairness of the auction case for the said real estate by means of the aforementioned deceptive scheme.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements 1.